Paper detail

Crucial aspects of the initial mass function (I): The statistical correlation between the total mass of an ensemble of stars and its most massive star

Our understanding of stellar systems depends on the adopted interpretation of the IMF, phi(m). Unfortunately, there is not a common interpretation of the IMF, which leads to different methodologies and diverging analysis of observational data.We study the correlation between the most massive star that a cluster would host, mmax, and its total mass into stars, M, as an example where different views of the IMF lead to different results. We assume that the IMF is a probability distribution function and analyze the mmax-M correlation within this context. We also examine the meaning of the equation used to derive a theoretical M-char_mmax relationship, N x int[Char_mmax-mup] phi(m) dm = 1 with N the total number of stars in the system, according to different interpretations of the IMF. We find that only a probabilistic interpretation of the IMF, where stellar masses are identically independent distributed random variables, provides a self-consistent result. Neither M nor N, can be used as IMF scaling factors. In addition, Char_mmax is a characteristic maximum stellar mass in the cluster, but not the actual maximum stellar mass. A <M>-Char_mmax correlation is a natural result of a probabilistic interpretation of the IMF; however, the distribution of observational data in the N (or M)-cmmax plane includes a dependence on the distribution of the total number of stars, N (and M), in the system, Phi(N), which is not usually taken into consideration. We conclude that a random sampling IMF is not in contradiction to a possible mmax-M physical law. However, such a law cannot be obtained from IMF algebraic manipulation or included analytically in the IMF functional form. The possible physical information that would be obtained from the N (or M)-mmax correlation is closely linked with the Phi(M) and Phi(N) distributions; hence it depends on the star formation process and the assumed.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.